5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kozubnik, Poland.
6.  On 24 February 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police.
7.  On 28 February 2001 the Żywiec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in drug trafficking and drug production as a member of an organised gang.
8.  On 21 May and 18 August 2001 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court decided to prolong the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the severity of the penalty that might be imposed, which made it probable that he would obstruct the proceedings.
9.  In 2001 the applicant on at least four occasions unsuccessfully requested the prosecutor to release him from detention.
10.  On 20 December 2001 the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The court relied on the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and held that keeping the applicant in detention was justified by the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.
11.  On 13 February and 17 April 2002 the Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's detention reiterating the grounds originally given for his detention and adding that the measure was necessary given the complexity of the case.
12.  The applicant's appeals against both decisions were dismissed on 27 March and 22 May 2002 respectively.
13.  Subsequently, on 24 July and 25 September 2002, the Katowice Court of Appeal prolonged the detention of the applicant and 12 co‑accused. The court considered that the strong suspicion against the accused of having committed serious offences while acting in an organised gang made it probable that they would obstruct the course of the proceedings. It found that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the accused might induce them to obstruct the proceedings. With regard to the applicant, the court underlined the risk of a heavy sentence being imposed on him.
14.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant and 15 co‑accused were indicted before the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court.
15.  On 27 November 2002 the pre-trial detention of the applicant and 14 other persons was further extended. The Katowice Regional Court considered the risk of the accused tampering with evidence high, basing itself on the fact that they had been charged with being members of an organised criminal gang.
16.  The applicant appealed against this decision but on 8 January 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.
17.  As the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) the District Court made several applications to the Katowice Court of Appeal for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 8 January 2003 the Court of Appeal granted the application. The court justified its decision with reference to the reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed the offences and the complexity of the case which concerned an organised criminal gang. The court also held that the measure was justified by the severity of the sentence to which the accused were liable and by the risk that they would interfere with the course of the proceedings.
18.  On 17 March 2003 the applicant, again unsuccessfully, requested the court to lift his pre-trial detention.
19.  On 6 August 2003 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention on remand. The court noted, however, that although the bill of indictment had been lodged eight months previously, the trial court had not yet started to examine the merits of the case. As regards the need to prolong the applicant's detention, the court noted as follows:
“...The [Regional Court] rightly pointed to Articles 249 § 1 and 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to justify the continuation of the detention on remand in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, and there is no need to discuss that further.
It should be underlined that, given the number of co-accused and the type of offences they had been charged with, the present case is particularly complex. Therefore, it is necessary to prolong further the detention in order to carry out the proceedings, in particular to take evidence from 16 accused and 11 witnesses...
It should also be noted that, as the proceedings advance, the Regional Court should consider whether it was still necessary to extend the [detention on remand] with respect to all the accused.”
20.  The first hearing was held on 13 November 2003. In total, the trial court held 36 hearings.
21.  On 17 December 2003 the Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant's detention. The court pointed to the complexity of the case and the advanced stage of the proceedings before the trial court.
22.  On 18 March 2004 the applicant repeated his request to lift the detention on remand.
23.  On 23 June 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention relying in particular on the complexity of the case and the large number of co-accused.
24.  On 24 August and 13 October 2004 the court dismissed subsequent requests to lift the applicant's pre-trial detention.
25.  On 16 December 2004 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court gave judgment. It convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. On the same date the court decided to lift the applicant's detention.
26.  The applicant lodged an appeal.
27.  On 26 January 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the judgment as regards the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant. It appears that the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal. The judgment is final.